A Jedi Mission: Defeating White Nationalism

OB1Shinobi wrote: Hold on you guys, i see theres enough interest at least to merit further explanation. Give me some time to address your points Sam, and hopefully you will see that despite the word "defeat" what i have in mind is (mostly) not a combative program. We arent trying to defeat PEOPLE, and higher level of social unity and cohesion is the end goal

Sorry...maybe I did sort of jump in there assuming this was going more in the vein of previous related threads...

Which actually somewhat illustrates my point of what our perceptions can do in influence how we approach an issue.

*************

So shifting to the question of how do we create a "higher level of social unity and cohesion"...I would still remain somewhat skeptical as to whether that is the purpose of the Jedi, and while a cause of noble intent, seems as though it could hardly be accomplished without either extreme patience in living the Jedi way and allowing that to influence as it would, or actively imposing change on a massive scale which still would require an incredible amount of forcing Our beliefs on others...

Quite the conundrum, but I will sit back to see where it goes.

Just remind them the "Aryan race" was from India and Iran. That's a good start.

TheDude wrote: The problem of race-based pride and supremacist movements is stuck on a timer. As time goes on, especially in the US, so-called ethnic or racial "purity" disappears. With a combination of immigration and cultural homogenization, there are some predicting that it will be less than 100 years before the distinct racial groups which exist today no longer exist. The number of "white" or "black" or "Asian" people, etc, is going to inevitably drop to zero. If the current trends (reproductive trends) continue these problems will not exist in the not so distant future.

That isn't to say that white supremacy or any other kind of racism is acceptable, but that time isn't on their side.

I'm not so sure the stats you post are accurate nor should they be the desired outcome. Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with people partnering with and procreated with whom ever they choose but I would also not be in favor of total race mixing. I would not want ANY race to become extinct. I would prefer to see them all survive intact and maintain their beauty and their culture and histories. Furthermore, I think you will see new cultures that will produce new races emerge in the future as we delve into space and colonize other planets or maybe even other star systems. The natural evolution of such remotely located groups of people will eventually cause them to emerge as new discrete races. Even though we may not have the insight to predict some of these evolutionary and social changes I dont think there will ever be an end to racial diversity.

First, i'll endeavour* to address some of the potential and already expressed misgivings. I was as brief as i was able to be in my introduction because this thing is going to take a LOT of thinking and typing and researching on my part, and if its somethijng that isnt going to get much support then i was hoping to at least reduce the amount of typing lol.

I am not asking for any kind of mandate or executive order. Ive already begun doing this in my own time, and this topic is an explanation of what i am on about as well as a solicitation for assistance to those who agree with it. Im not expecting this to become some kind of "official" TOTJO mission. LOL at the very idea: we are way too free-spirited (not to mention lazy) for that sort of thing.

This is not a hostile program that i am suggesting. Quite the opposite in fact, as youll see when i explain the "interaction and response model" which is specifically designed to build rapport between ourselves and the person or people with whom we speak (when such a thing is possible) as well as to be a procedure and set of guidelines that we can follow in order to be models to outside observers for how to conductp healthy and mature discussions and disagreements.

Winning over the silent observers is as much a part of the program as countering the basic propsitions of the WNs, as is setting a public example of how to handle difficult issues without fueling more hostility and resentment. But the explanation of the model is a little bit later. The last I will say of it atm is that its basic principles are 1) that the only emotions or feelings expressed should be the rapport building kind such as empathy, respect, humor, and comradery, and 2) the only "points" that we score will be issue-centered points which address the actual arguments and not person-centered points, which are the various attack people use to defeat one another personally. More on that later.

Right now we are at ...

1) An ongoing analysis of the white nationalist movement: what it is, how it emerged, who its members are**, what they believe, what they want, the arguments and evidences that they use to justify and promote their cause, the risks that they pose to society, and their strengths and weaknesses as a social movement.

Im going to do my best to keep all of this in my own words, rather than just posting a video and saying "here watch this" (but there will be videos and links when necessary). But just so you know, i am not an expert, or a professional scholar. I still have a lot to learn about the specifics of the movement, so i might not have all of this perfect. This is definitely a functional introduction, simply be aware as we move forward that some of the details may have to be amended as we all learn more.

There has been something of a culture war going on for the last few years, whereby group vs group power struggles are increasingly defining our political and civil landscape. It has been steadily growing and gradually escalating. White nationalism (WN) is the simply latest development in that broader cultural trend towards greater and greater polarization, extremism, and hostility.

White Supremacist groups are nothing new, but theyve been largely discredited and ridiculed into the background for a couple decades now. What makes the WN movement different and more dangerous than tradititonal hate groups is that it serves as a far more rational delivery system for the assumptions and biases upon which the hate groups are founded. The basic ideology of the already existing hate groups is the nucleus of WN but the movement emrged and is bolstered to a great degree as a response to increasing anti white sentiment. Many otherwise moderate whites are turning towards WN simply because they feel threatened by what they (correctly or incorectly) perceive as a global and rapidly growing anti-white sentiment. You may not believe there really is such a thing, Thats fine. THEY believe it, and you have to understand and respect that if you want to reach them.
Another reason WN is appealing to otherwise moderate whites is that (on the surface) they appear to be a rational movement. They explicitly assert that they are not violent and not race supremacists: "not better, just different". They are actually a racial supremacist group at heart, but by proclaiming this position they make themselves more appealing to the mainstream.

For those who dont know, WN is a separatist movement that seeks to establish an all-white "ethnostate", somewhere America. At the moment they are seeking to accomplish this through political means, with a combination of"incentives and coercions" all of which im not entirely clear on, but roughly speakiing they want to claim a stake of territory and offer some payment to nonwhites to leave, and basically deport those who refuse.
One proposal i have seen is a national segregation, where whites would get the northern states and blacks would get some of the southern. In this aim they actuall have black separatist allies in groups such as black panthers, the militand branch of the Nation of Islam.

Of course is never going to happen. The danger they pose is not that they will achieve their stated political aims. What is the danger they represent to society? Stay tuned and i will tell you in my next post lol. I know some of you were waiting for this reply so i wanted to get it posted asap, and also this is a lot of writing with way more still to do, and i need to pace myself. Let me say that i believe the dangers are great, and i believe that Charlottesville was only the first of many future deaths unless a new element is introduced into the socio-cultural dialogue

* note that "endeavor" is really just a fancy word for "try", which is actually a pretty useful word everywhere but in the SW community, where it is inevitably followed by the obligatory Yoda quote lol

** when i say "who its members are, i dont mean doxxing peoples personal info. I mean generic profiles and the basic differences among the membership base

Quick response:

SamThift wrote: Sorry...maybe I did sort of jump in there assuming this was going more in the vein of previous related threads...

Which actually somewhat illustrates my point of what our perceptions can do in influence how we approach an issue.

*************

So shifting to the question of how do we create a "higher level of social unity and cohesion"...I would still remain somewhat skeptical as to whether that is the purpose of the Jedi, and while a cause of noble intent, seems as though it could hardly be accomplished without either extreme patience in living the Jedi way and allowing that to influence as it would, or actively imposing change on a massive scale which still would require an incredible amount of forcing Our beliefs on others...

Quite the conundrum, but I will sit back to see where it goes.

Do you feel that you were attempting to force your beliefs on me with this post?
Id guess, no; you were simply responding to what i wrote with your honest concerns. Thats what im talking about doing as well, on the topic of WN.

Im not so much into "forcing our views" as offering rational counter points to what has already suggested itself to be a dangerous ideology.

Is some form of action (discussions are actions) even inherently necessary, or could inaction be a reasonable action here to?

The question as it is framed is already guiding that there is an answer to be developed, while ignoring that it may not need be answered at all.

I recently offered my take on one of the Temple's 21 Maxims: Intervention. Below is the doctrinal explanation in regular font, with my comments in blue:

Intervention: To know when not to act.

A Jedi knows how inaction can have as great an impact as action and how some of the greatest lessons are self-taught. To be a victor is also taking that victory from those you protect. A Jedi intervenes only when a Jedi's intervention is required.

There is no wrong action or wrong inaction, thus intervention cannot be promoted nor discouraged. Every moment of every existence throughout every particle of the universe, intervention is occurring. When a Jedi breathes he steals the oxygen from another dependent being who just took its last breath; yet if a Jedi holds his breath, he deprives the plant-life around him from the carbon dioxide their existence requires, and the petal of a flower falls. Our existence, in every single moment, is an intervention with the existence of another. We cannot feel remorse for not taking action when our emotions suggested we should, just as we do not feel pride for having intervened in a situation our emotions caused us to act in. We are just instruments.

I am not intending to be difficult, for the events and implications are certainly something we should take into consideration. I only caution the effect of ignoring Hamlet's question for the ages: "To be, or not to be". The "mission" as it is presented, and the first 5 points you originally offer, seem to focus most on the "To Be" and ignore the possibility of "Not To Be."


When various individuals/groups/organizations/etc. approach the social environment with a message to spread, through protests, social media campaigns, violence, whatever it may be, there primary goal is usually to get their ideas "out there".

This group, and others like it, hardly have to do any more work in this area themselves now....since they have established a narrative and created a self-perpetuating spread of their ideas.

Every single discussion on every single platform throughout the world which references their beliefs is self-fulfilling of those beliefs in that it will put the seeds of that thought in the minds of many.

It seems most fruitful in my opinion, here, and with regard to other ideologically driven organizations who have used, do use, or may use similar tactics in the future, that NOT sharing, discussing, or furthering their ideas is the most effective way to eliminate that train of thought.

I understand the sentiment of wanting to not give attention to something you consider distasteful, but i think we are past that. If ignoring the WN movement was going to stop it from growing then we wouldnt be having this discussion. Most of us were already ignoring it, and its numbers have exploded nonetheless. I would say the problem is that too many people are ignoring it, and those who arent ignoring it are responding to it in the wrong way.

All racist ideologies are fundamentally irrational (because race is not correlated with any of the attributes necessary for success in any human endeavour or for healthy and mutually beneficial relationships and interactions between people within any of the important contexts). The nemisis of all irrational ideologies is rational public dissection. Once it becomes obvious that an irrational and divisive social movement is gaining popular support, it is the continued silence by those who know better which allows that movement to flourish.

Ive been trying to get this message through for a couple of years now: identity politics are slowly tearig America apart. They are pushing us closer and closer into violence, and we need to address these issues openly, fairly, and with with some modicum of sanity. Im thankful to those few of you who have responded. It doesnt look like theres going to be what id call "an abundance of support" here lol. I will continue with this topic anyway, though it will be a somewhat leisurely pace. Maybe it will gain momentum as it progresses.

OB1Shinobi wrote: I understand the sentiment of wanting to not give attention to something you consider distasteful, but i think we are past that.

If I conveyed a sense of "ignoring" the question, or some form of "apathy", then perhaps my dialogue on the subject at all was misinterpreted...cause it seemed to me that while my comments were not direct to the question of the elephant in the room...I did not imagine they would be construed as a "distasteful" view of the issue..

Yet...as you show that you have been...

OB1Shinobi wrote: ...trying to get this message through for a couple of years now: identity politics are slowly tearig America apart. They are pushing us closer and closer into violence, and we need to address these issues openly, fairly, and with with some modicum of sanity. Im thankful to those few of you who have responded. It doesnt look like theres going to be what id call "an abundance of support" here lol. I will continue with this topic anyway, though it will be a somewhat leisurely pace. Maybe it will gain momentum as it progresses.

...I concede that it would be more of my position that it does warrant discussion...I would just caution that the discussion proceed in a more comprehensive review of the influencing factors, so as not to neglect the opportunity to achieve a full understanding of the issue, where it could and could not go, and how we should or should not react to it.

I feel it would be just as helpful to consider how the larger question would be asked were conditions, times, and roles all reversed.

I have a few relative examples to offer...but will have to get to those a tad later...gotta get off to class now.

Cheers

So I bite of a rather deep topic for my first post. Please note that all of this was off the cuff. So if there is anything that I said that doesn't make sense please let me know and I can try to explain further.

OB1Shinobi wrote: 1) An ongoing analysis of the white nationalist movement: what it is, how it emerged, who its members are, what they believe, what they want, the arguments and evidences that they use to justify and promote their cause, the risks that they pose to society, and their strengths and weaknesses as a social movement.

So I've been thinking over the past couple days on how to respond to this first part. This is a uniquely complexly simple question. You can say that this is all started as a reaction from the Civil War. Those African-Americans who remained behind.could not be enslaved they were controlled by other means. Having been forced to accept their former slaves as equal must have been had and many could not accept it. So things like Jim Crow laws and the KKK emerged in order to control the newly freed slaves. They wanted to make the African-Americans who were still in the South that they were less then the Whites.

This is how White Nationalism started. It has grow over the years because of fear, want of power and control. I'll start with power and control first. Power and control over African-Americans and over Whites. This first is obvious Jim Crow insured that African-Americans were not given easy means of moving upwardly through economic or social means. Groups such as the KKK terrorized them to keep African-Americans "in their place." I'm sure we all know the history of the KKK so there's no real need to go into all that.

What most people don't think about is that White Nationalism was used to control Whites. Those who were in power (Southern political leaders and the like) stoke fears to misdirect them away from their own problems. It is a tactic that has been used many times by those who wanted to keep their political power; make a minority group who doesn't have any economic or social power the villain. They are taking jobs, they are criminals, etc.

White Nationalists use the current state of minorities to justify that they were correct, ignoring the fact that laws and policies were put in place that caused these problems. Things like how long prison terms are different for crack cocaine possession (which is cheaper and thus used more by poor African-Americans), and powered cocaine possession (which is used more by those who are more well off) were designed specifically to punish African-Americans more. Red lining housing districts and "white flight" were another way to makes sure that they weren't able to raise in economic status.

This brings us to the current White Nationalists. Those who held these beliefs started to expand to any non-white, non-straight and even non-christian minorities. They believe that the countries problems stem from these groups because for them their problems started with a minority that they once were able to control completely. They still hold on to the fears that minorities are out to take their jobs, destroy the moral fabric of the nation and dismantle white culture. They ignore the fact that African-Americans are over represented in the lower economic strata and within prison populations. Also that after years of institutional racism it is statistically harder for African-Americans and Latinos to get jobs, housing and loans. They ignore facts or twist them to fit their own twisted views.